This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Current Status Quo on Safety of 5G Spectrum : Unacceptable Risks to Human Health

Former Community Member
Former Community Member

The World Health Organization, which is the leading body for ensuring the Health of Global Citizens, states on its position on 5G spectrum safety as :



www.who.int/.../radiation-5g-mobile-networks-and-health    



"



Tissue heating is the main mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency fields and the human body. Radiofrequency exposure levels from current technologies result in negligible temperature rise in the human body.



As the frequency increases, there is less penetration into the body tissues and absorption of the energy becomes more confined to the surface of the body (skin and eye). Provided that the overall exposure remains below international guidelines, no consequences for public health are anticipated.



"



This is an Unqualified Statement on the Safety of 5G. Whilst the WHO concedes that the tissues of the human may heat upon exposure to 5G spectrum, it does not conclude that it could not cause other illnesses such as Cardiovascular and Cellular diseases from such exposures of extreme frequencies. Clearly, if the WHO accepts that 5G would have a biological effect on Humans, the extent of which could also be severe - cannot therefore be neglected from the statement. Hence, from this statement, it is concluded by implications of an Unqualified Statement, that 5G could cause other severe cardiovascular and cellular disease. 



Further the EMF Safety Levels stated in previous research such as that with ICNIRP has been traditionally set for safety assessment of Nuclear Reactors. However, this is different to Mobile Phone 5G radiation, as the EMF generating unit, is held in close proximity to the Human Body. Hence, the particular numbers for EMF Safety that is deduced from testing for safety of Nuclear Reactors in human habitation, cannot be applied as being equivalent for the radiation safety of smaller units but closer proximity EMF object of that of a mobile phone transmitting high energy and Gigahertz frequency. 



Hence, it can therefore be concluded that in the current state of research, there is no significant evidence to convince in a Qualified manner, that 5G is safe for Human uses. Till significant research has been conducted, upon which WHO could provide such a Qualified Statement for its safety, implementing Gigahertz Frequency of 5G in the Environment would not be a safe undertaking for any society. 


Parents
  • Are you not familiar with the large body of peer reviewed experimental work done looking at the effect of em radiation of all frequencies on the human body, and on  living organisms in general?

    We are talking many hundreds of man years of investigations and thousands of publications.

    The safe levels are not plucked from thin air, they are based on significant volumes of experiment and research.


    I suggest you bring yourself partly up to date by reading all the work in the references in the last 2 pages of the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines  which itself is a good read as it describes how the limits are set and factors of safety determined. (and that bit of ICNIRP  has nothing to do with nuclear reactors by the way  that is a totally different team of experts writing that one..  List of ICNIRP specialist groups )

    This list of  references  includes many papers in the public domain, for example those  available on websites such as the  US national Toxicology Program    and  The health council of the Netherlands  specifically looking at mobile phone frequencies, that you do not even have to visit a library to read,  as well as several articles that have been published in health Physics and various Medical Journals. With the internet there really is no excuse for the intelligent reader not to be pretty much up to date.


    Also make sure you fully understand the physics of EM radiation and understand how power density and field strengths are interrelated, and the attenuating effect of distance from the source  (EM radiation)(near and far) (antennas) (inverse square law) . And which frequencies you are concerned with.

    Then, and only then, you will be able to comment from a  well informed position.

    regards

    Mike.
Reply
  • Are you not familiar with the large body of peer reviewed experimental work done looking at the effect of em radiation of all frequencies on the human body, and on  living organisms in general?

    We are talking many hundreds of man years of investigations and thousands of publications.

    The safe levels are not plucked from thin air, they are based on significant volumes of experiment and research.


    I suggest you bring yourself partly up to date by reading all the work in the references in the last 2 pages of the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines  which itself is a good read as it describes how the limits are set and factors of safety determined. (and that bit of ICNIRP  has nothing to do with nuclear reactors by the way  that is a totally different team of experts writing that one..  List of ICNIRP specialist groups )

    This list of  references  includes many papers in the public domain, for example those  available on websites such as the  US national Toxicology Program    and  The health council of the Netherlands  specifically looking at mobile phone frequencies, that you do not even have to visit a library to read,  as well as several articles that have been published in health Physics and various Medical Journals. With the internet there really is no excuse for the intelligent reader not to be pretty much up to date.


    Also make sure you fully understand the physics of EM radiation and understand how power density and field strengths are interrelated, and the attenuating effect of distance from the source  (EM radiation)(near and far) (antennas) (inverse square law) . And which frequencies you are concerned with.

    Then, and only then, you will be able to comment from a  well informed position.

    regards

    Mike.
Children
No Data